Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

CHICAGO - Antioxidant vitamins taken by tens of millions of people around the world won't lead to a longer life, according to an analysis of dozens of studies that adds to evidence questioning the value of the popular supplements. The large review of separate studies on thousands of people found no long-life benefit from vitamins A, E and C and beta carotene and selenium.

However, some experts said it's too early to toss out all vitamin pills ó or the possibility that they may have some health benefits. Others said the study supports the theory that antioxidants work best when they are consumed in food rather than pills.

An estimated 80 million to 160 million people take antioxidants in North America and Europe, about 10 to 20 percent of adults, the study's authors said. And last year, Americans spent $2.3 billion on nutritional supplements and vitamins at grocery stores, drug stores and retail outlets, excluding Wal-Mart, according to Information Resources Inc., which tracks sales.

The new study, appearing in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, was led by the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark. The Cochrane organization is a respected international network of experts that does systematic reviews of scientific evidence on health interventions.

For the new report on antioxidants, the researchers first analyzed 68 studies involving 232,606 people and found no significant effect on mortality ó neither good nor bad ó linked to taking antioxidants.

When they eliminated the lower-quality studies and looked only at the most trustworthy ones, they actually found a higher risk of death for people taking vitamins: 4 percent for those taking vitamin E, 7 percent for beta carotene and 16 percent for vitamin A. The actual cause of death in most studies was unknown, however.

Those findings are based on an analysis of 47 studies involving 180,938 people who were randomly assigned to get real vitamins or dummy pills. Some involved superdoses far exceeding the recommended daily amount of the compounds; others involved normal doses.

Some experts who reviewed the research were dismissive of the increased death risk and the analysis overall, saying it pooled studies that were too diverse.

However, the study's senior author, Dr. Christian Gluud of Copenhagen University Hospital, said, "The main message is that prevention by beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E cannot be recommended. These three antioxidant supplements may increase mortality."

Gluud said most of the studies didn't reveal why those taking supplements died, but "in all likelihood, what they died from is what people normally die from, maybe accelerated artherosclerosis, maybe cancer."

Antioxidant supplements have been tested repeatedly by many clinical trials with no consistent clear evidence for their health effects, Gluud said.

"We have had this huge industry really wanting to demonstrate an intervention effect that has gone to lengths to do so," Gluud said. "Sadly enough for the industry, and for us as consumers, it has failed to do so."

Preliminary studies suggested antioxidants might block the heart-damaging effects of oxygen on arteries and the cell damage that might encourage some kinds of cancer.

But some researchers now believe antioxidants work only when they are in food, or that people who eat vitamin-rich food are healthier simply because they take better care of themselves. And beta carotene supplements have been found to increase lung cancer risk in smokers.

Meir Stampfer, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the new analysis hasn't discouraged him from taking his vitamins.

Stampfer said the studies were too diverse to pool together because they looked at various combinations and doses of antioxidants tested in different groups of people. The trials ranged from a three-month study of 109 elderly nursing home residents to a 12-year study of 22,071 male doctors.

"This study does not advance our understanding, and could easily lead to misinterpretation of the data," said Stampfer, who was not connected to the new report.

The complaints were echoed by Andrew Shao, a scientist at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a supplement trade association.

"Only when they included and excluded certain trials were they able to find this alleged increase in mortality, which they themselves can't explain," Shao said. "There is plenty of data out there that show regular use of antioxidant supplements help to maintain health."

Donald Berry, chairman of the department of biostatistics at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said the analysis persuades him antioxidants have no measurable health benefits, but he disagrees with the researchers' finding of an increase risk of dying.

"There are so many choices you can make when you're doing these analyses," he said.

Alice Lichtenstein, a professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University who was not involved with the research, said the study's main message is: "Rely on food to get your nutrients."

Wow...I'm really shocked to read this! This just about blows everything that we think we're doing right out of the water! But you know what....I don't really believe it. Two days from now there might be a study that comes out and totally contradicts this info. One day margarine is good for you, the next week butter is better....and on and on and on. We just have to be smart people and stay informed and not believe everything to read or hear.

They're not saying that it's bad to get these from nutritional sources. They just seem to be saying, more or less, that we're just passing out pricey supplements out in our piss, or that is what I suspect.

Q: Why did this study come up with findings that are so different from what we've come to believe?

A: It's actually not a study, but a meta-analysis of 68 different randomized trials. Using statistically rigorous methods, meta-analyses are supposed to tease out details from a broad range of studies that might not be readily apparent in any individual study.

Q: Why is it controversial?

A: Meta-analysis are always potentially controversial because the researchers have to make so many decisions about what data to include and how to weigh it. Critics of this analysis say the researchers were biased in which studies they gave the most weight to and which ones they considered less reliable.

Q: Aside from the controversy, what's the take-home message here?

A: According to lead researcher Christian Gluud, it's this: Eat a varied diet with lots of vegetables, fruits and whole grains, get exercise and lead a balanced life. Pills can't make up for an unhealthy lifestyle. "We need very good evidence before advising anyone to put anything in their mouth," he says.

It's always an issue with most in the medical fraternity to diss supplements. They rather you spend your hard earned money on ARVs and their consultation visits than show any slightest hint of independence or intelligence to try and find ways to improve your own health.

My HIV doctor constantly tells me to eat more for my slight facial wasting, stress less and not to spend any money on any supplements; ie, a simple balanced diet will do. Then she goes on to encourage regular lab testing ($300 each time) to evaluate the results. Detailed tests here (Asia) are NOT free. I have to pay out of my own pocket and they are not covered by any insurance.

I'm not against medical advice/therapy but like approaching a balanced diet, I believe in a balanced view. I take loads of supplements daily and I DO feel the difference. They do help me, from my dry skin, bleeding gums to even increasing my energy levels. And these are not placebos.

My own philosophy is simple and effective. Try it out on your own if you can. What you feel is what it is. Instead of reading what is good today and bad tomorrow and good again and so on and again, let your own body tell you. Listen hard enough and it will teach you.

I constantly scour the net and library sources to learn more about improving my health with my condition, and I filter out alot of outdated and incredulous data. However, alot of reasonably promising and helpful info do interest me to try them out and probe further. To each his own.

Be advised certainly, but dun be entirely dependent on one source. We are all blessed with a brain, use it wisely.

When I see this type of information I just shrug my shoulders and continue taking my full regimine of nutruients.

I am interested in maintaing my CD4 Counts and suppressing HIV side effects.

This is not a study done on people with HIV, or about how nutrients affect those with HIV.

Over supplementation, I think, has really been the point of ideas that you can improve quality and length of life by taking large doses of antioxidents.

But people with HIV can have deficiencies and added stress to the immune system, therefore supplementation to replace nutrients may be helpful.

Additionally, there are antioxidents I don't believe are being looked at here. Alpha Lopaic Acid, Acetyl-l-Carnininte, and NAC definately helped my Liver enzyme issue, countering my increase enzyme counts to 0. Additionally, these 3 nutients are often used by diabetics to help with Neuopathy, something that HIV'rs have an issue as well. The thought being the anti oxident qualities of these three supplement actually reduce the inflamatory response associated with HIV and meds to treat HIV.

Selenium acutally has been studied and may help increase cd4 count.

Glutamine has been used to stop med caused diarrehha and also improves Gut Health, important in long term HIV Survival.

And I will also continue to take the suppllements that I do. I make periodic changes and tweaks, but I do what makes me feel good.

In addition to the link I provided, there was a comment, If anyone had read it :

"The control groups examined in the study probably includes many people who are taking statins, hypertension, and anti-inflammatory drugs - all or any of which will decrease quality of life and seriously affect life expectancy in people over the age of 50 years. From my own and many of my acquaintances and friends experience, drug-free, normally healthy persons in this age group will definitely show enhanced quality of life and life expectancy using vitamins and supplements prescribed to suit their individual circumstances and conditions. I do not think that this study reflects very well on the scientific credibility of the people involved and unfortunately this type of careless treatment of a very complex subject is all too common amongst the medical profession today."

As I read it this is coming from supplements. I drink Lakewood cranberry and blueberry juice - no sugar and chock full of natural anti oxidants. Processed food ( besides yoghurt )is not good for anyone.If the people are healthy they should be getting all their nutritional needs through a good diet.A supplement is just that.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2007, 07:40:17 PM by alisenjafi »

Logged

"You shut your mouthhow can you sayI go about things the wrong wayI am human and I need to be lovedjust like everybody else does"The Smiths

Suppliments don't have everything anyway.There are tens, hundreds or even thousands of micro-nutrients that we don't know about.Eat right, if you're eating correctly then you don't need suppliments.If you are taking suppliments and aren't eating right, suppliments aren't going to replace real food.

You can pay $10,000 to buy all the nutrients contained in an apple, even then it won't have everything the real one does.

You can get Vitamin D from pretty much anything <_<Last I knew you get it from being in the sun, overcast or not. It Shines through.

Sulfer lights matches.... uhm.... yah.....

A pill is not alive, it can't substitute the real thing.

I suppose one or two aren't bad or anything but I wouldn't replace my eggs with selenuim nor my tomatos with vitamin c pills..... If you're doing both then your body might be over-focusing on the extra nutrients that it forgets about the ones it's lacking

This is something I came across following the study on anti-oxidants. Although written by a supplement manufacturer and distributor, it does have some salient points to consider.

Peace!

Michael

--------------------------------------You are probably aware of a study that came out earlier this week in JAMA from Denmark indicating that in a meta-analysis of 68 randomized trials involving over 200,000 people, vitamins A, E and beta-carotene may increase mortality risk by up to 16%. The study indicated vitamin C did not have any clear effect on mortality and that the anti-oxidant mineral selenium was actually associated with a 9% decrease in all cause mortality. I read the full text of this study just published and must say that it is quite a mish-mosh. The authors of the study combined a large series of different studies using all different levels of nutrients, quality of nutrients (synthetic versus natural), and so on. The methodology in this meta-analysis I feel was terribly flawed. Dr. Stampfer, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health told the Associated Press that the studies reviewed were too different to be able to pool them together. I couldn't more strongly agree with Dr. Stampfer's impression1.

The authors of this paper further seemed to stack the deck against vitamins. They had reviewed a total of 815 different trials but included only 68 of them in their final analysis. There were over 400 trials that they reviewed in which the mortality rate was zero in both the vitamin group and the control group. They decided to exclude these over 400 trials because there was zero mortality. If indeed they were trying to determine is there was truly some increased risk of mortality associated with vitamins, why not include the over 400 trials that showed no mortality whatsoever. Furthermore within the 68 trials they decided whether they were low bias or high bias trials based on the way each study was conducted. When they looked at all 68 trials together they reported no significant effect on mortality. However when they selected out the 47 trials that they considered low bias (involving over 180,000 participants) that is when they saw some increased risk of mortality with some of the vitamins.

As I read through this meta-analysis I could not help but feel that there was tremendous bias in putting together this paper. It is important to point out Denmark is in the European Union and their doctors and government tend to be very anti-vitamins and biased against supplements based on their absurd regulations. And of course the main stream press picked up on this study making the sweeping comment that vitamins will kill you. The press is not interested in reporting the fair and balanced facts but rather sensational headlines. I do not believe that anyone in the vitamin/nutrition business is advocating that you take only vitamin A, vitamin E and beta carotene as your nutritional supplements. Some of the best nutrients available were not analyzed in this paper such as alpha lipoic acid, coq10, omega-3 essential fatty acids, ginkgo, green tea, grape seed just to name a few. At the present time there are many cancer centers throughout the United States including the National Cancer Institute that are studying nutrients like soy, green tea and curcumin for their health benefits.

A great example of media bias is a recent 2007 study they ignored entirely that was conducted in San Francisco, CA regarding vitamin D. This study is available on the National Library of Medicine which is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. I have provided the full abstract below2:

"Solar ultraviolet B (UVB) irradiance and/or vitamin D have been found inversely correlated with incidence, mortality, and/or survival rates for breast, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer and Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Evidence is emerging that more than 17 different types of cancer are likely to be vitamin D-sensitive. A recent meta-analysis concluded that 1,000 IU of oral vitamin D per day is associated with a 50% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence. Using this value, as well as the findings in a multifactorial ecologic study of cancer mortality rates in the US, estimates for reductions in risk of vitamin D-sensitive cancer mortality rates were made for 1,000 IU/day. These estimates, along with annual average serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, were used to estimate the reduction in cancer mortality rates in several Western European and North American countries that would result from intake of 1,000 IU/day of vitamin D. It was estimated that reductions could be 7% for males and 9% for females in the US and 14% for males and 20% for females in Western European countries below 59 degrees. It is proposed that increased fortification of food and increased availability of supplements could help increase vitamin D intake and could augment small increases in production of vitamin D from solar UVB irradiance. Providing 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day for all adult Americans would cost about $1 billion; the expected benefits for cancer would be in the range of $16-25 billion in addition to other health benefits of vitamin D."

There are those of you who may say that I too cannot be objective since I am deeply involved with this vitamin company. My interest with vitacost/NSI developed over time as I came to understand and appreciate the incredible benefits of proper nutritional supplementation. Obviously this negative vitamin study is likely being hailed in the halls of the pharmaceutical companies who spent over $800 million the last seven years lobbying congress and the FDA not to mention tens of billions on marketing. They see the vitamin industry as a clear and present danger to their over $200 billion per year monopoly that is bankrupting Americans and our government. The fact that it is well known that over 100,000 people die every year in this country from the proper use and administration of drugs does not seem to get much press. Oh well, I've known about that double standard for a long time.

I assumed this was a study of HIV neg people- people with HIV have a different set of needs, when I was first diagnosed I took multi vitamins - then realized I needed to look at my diet. Yes there are things I will not get enough of out of eating healthy- dhea for example. You need to look at everything.

At the same time I am aware that the gov't want's more control of the suppliment industry- me thinks so the FDA can make more money. If someone is content and feels good about aking this stuff go right ahead.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 11:47:49 AM by alisenjafi »

Logged

"You shut your mouthhow can you sayI go about things the wrong wayI am human and I need to be lovedjust like everybody else does"The Smiths

This is something I came across following the study on anti-oxidants. Although written by a supplement manufacturer and distributor, it does have some salient points to consider.

Yet didn't you make fun of research done by pharmaceutical companies? What's the difference if you take the word of the "BigSuppliment" companies?

I WANT STUDIES AND PROOF OF WHAT WORKS, be it from either side. And from unbiased sources.

I took supplements for EIGHT years... LOTS of them and spent LOTS of money. My health is better now BY FAR with a simply multi-vitamin and fish oil, mostly due to HIV medications.

I realize that all of the supplements give you some sort of comfort, but I feel it's at least half a chimera because lots of is it simply pissed out of your body. I feel the concentration should be on obtaining proper nutrients from REAL food, not pills.

I did not mean to begin this thread to sow discord, but only to provide balance to those of us that seek refuge in some things that have little to NO track record beyond "Oh, I'm so sure it makes me feel better." Roses make me feel better too but I don't eat them.

Yet everywhere folks seem to see a grand conspiracy! THE FDA WANTS MORE MONEY SO THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO INVESTIGATE THE SUPPLEMENTS INDUSTRY. It's just crazy... they just want to know if overtaking these supplements is actually counter-productive in large amounts. The entire supplement industry is incredibly, and detrimentally, not regulated.

I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE real science about all of this, certainly as it pertains to us who are infected with HIV. Otherwise I'm not going to spend $200/month on this stuff like I did for 8 years (or $19,200... and yet my cd4's are twice as high now with HIV medication.)

I too totally support real good wholesome food is the way to go. If we do miss some nutrients, they are called supplements and are as such. The article provided an interesting look on the other side of the coin. Listen to your own body and trust your own reactions. If it works truly, carry on. If not, either stop taking, minimise or modify ways from supplements, to alternatively obtain the necessary nutrients from other proven sources.

If excessive supplementation is the point, than I agree, more is not better.

Hey we aren't talking about scurvy and beri beri, but supplementation for hard to get nutrients or nutrients that provide immune support doesn't seem all that out there.

I take a chelated multi, vit D to supplement when I'm not in the sun, which is most of the time, 7 keto dhea, Ginsing, Astrogalus, and the big 3 antioxidents, alpha lopaic acid, Acetly L Carnintine and NAC. Oh a couple of probiotics, and omega 3.

I'm not taking additional E or C or beta carnintine. My multi does have 20 mcg of selenium.

Do what you want, it's your money. My disability payments cause me to chose between actual nutritious food or questionable supplement pills in bottles. Which would you chose in my situation?

All I'm saying is that my lab numbers are double what they were when I was spending $200/month on supplements. Sure, it could be some anomaly but who knows. I think taking SOME supplements are good and necessary. I also think a lot of HIV+ look to them as some sort of untested refuge that has little scientific support and research. I never once said all supplements are bad, so PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH because of your supplement agenda.

How much do you spend monthly on your supplement regimen, if you don't mind me asking? Trust me, I spent 8 years indulging in all of this... I know most of the products.

I believe the point philly is trying to contribute is that of a focus to a common sense approach. He's surely not trying to undermind anyones health. I don't think he needs me to come to his defense here.......but I see that his comments might be taken out of context. Spending hundreds of dollars on supplementation--that is--being naively "taken" on every claim out there can add up to serious waste of money at the years end. Ordinary, well-planned, balanced meals with reasonable supplementation is ample support for the average compromised system. (Barring extenuating circumstances.)

i.e., A recent study proved garlic supplementation doesn't contribute antioxidants in amounts to alter body conditions. My interpretation: if you aren't eating well (pyramid foods), the antioxidants aren't ingested and garlic isn't going to make the difference. People have been spending money on this supplement for that particular effect for decades, possibly centuries.

p.s. I use a product called CM4 which is dietary supplement to boost the immune system. It an extract from Eleuthero root. Will my CD4 count/viral load change if I stop taking this? Probably not. It's more like I am hoping this herb will make a difference in the long run. I am currently searching for something that will assist my liver in any fashion whatsoever. Many meds are hard on the liver and any help to Mr. Liver is something I want to do, as long as I can afford it.

Definately I take some of these out of convienence, such as the probiotics, which I should just eat and make my own yogurt. The herbals, i don't know if they do anything, I like the ginseng better than the astrogalus, but I take it as my cd4 have increase a bit since I started them. The D3 has been a surprise, helping with my winter blahs, the anti depressents didn't do anything, the D3 helped me better through the winter than the Light machine and the antidepressents.

I'm probably od'ing on omega 3, as I have borderline high cholesteral and triglycerides. When I'm in training I do much better, I've been sloughing off too much lately.

I consider the multi and the thiol nac formula and the acetyl-l-carnintine as critical, as I have liver issues, and have been completely normalized since I've started them. I am not relying only on the multi for the E and the C antioxidents. Selenium is in the multi and well as b complex, and trace mineals, all in chelated form.

The supps are helping me as I need help. I should loose 50 lbs and eat a better diet, but I'm doing better than I have in the past.

If one practices a really balanced and healthy lifestyle, would one need all this stuff, probably not, but I have a high stress job, lots of inactive hours typing, and the normal complaints of middle age. So I studied about these supps, found a fair and informative seller, and take the recommended dosage.

Is it going to make me live longer, I can't say, but my liver enzyme count is 0 from 200, my cholesteral is down to borderline high, from time to take meds, and my brain seems to be working pretty well and my energy level is pretty good. So as my specialist says, what ever your doing, it seems to be working. I can and must do more, but its something.

I am sympathetic to your situation, I don't want to make it seem that you are missing out of something, cos you aren't, if your doing great, then you don't need this stuff, and bully for you!

But if you ever start having signs of neuropathy, or liver issues etc, you may want to look at some of these, not all, but just the ones that might help.

I saw first hand at 11 years old that vitamins, minerals, and suppliments work. I saw how well the grass grew with nitrogen added, and the other plants in the yard, as well as the pets in the area. Look how important nutrition is to vets. They are always making sure the animal has nutrients. Our system was based on lies, why are there so many sugar cereals rotting kids teeth, innocent kids, rotting, because it makes money fast easy for some vultures, sure if you can afford expensive organic veg. and meats and food, all i am saying is the med prof. is lying when they say vit. not important, because there are two separate things

health and diseasethe dr.s mds and etc pharma are only good for treating disease and surguryfor giving health

that is from exercise, eating right, vitamins, minerals, peace, meditation (simply walking is a meditation, swiming watching tv is too) everything is

i can improve my health even when one small subsystem of my body has a disease, for example a rash on skin

99.9% of body is working perfectly

same with hiv

it is only a small fraction of the cd 4 cells that are infected and damaged only one in a million

there is absolutely no way someone is going to convince me that vitamins, and minerals are not good

ground up wheat, which is flour, use to be high tech and wars in europe were fought for thousands of years for that powder, flour and the land that produced it

we have advanced to some better ways... namely vitamins

i also learned at 11yrs, that if you put some salt in a potted plant it looks fine for 4 months, then slowly it starts getting yellow spots then after 8 months, getting sick, that is a good analogy for drug abuse, popper use, etcthe damage does not show up right away cause the biology is very very strongresistant

Alpha lipoic acid is available over-the-counter in dosages of 50 to 150 mg. Dyck is currently conducting a study measuring the efficacy of those capsules in other diabetic patients. The powerful antioxidant has been used for nearly 30 years in Europe to treat diabetic neuropathy and is being studied in the U.S. as a treatment for HIV, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and other conditions.

"I'm glad to see we have now jumped the Atlantic and the evidence gathered by German researchers decades ago has been read and is being considered by prominent American researchers," says Richard A. Passwater, PhD, retired biochemist who has studied antioxidant treatments since the 1960s and wrote the book, Lipoic Acid: The Metabolic Antioxidant. He says that he is not surprised by Dyck's findings.